| 7.3°C Belfast

In Pictures: The Apollo hoax theories

Close

<b>Where are the stars? </b><br/>
The pictures taken from the surface of the moon show a black sky, but space is full of stars. Where are they? 

The stars are there, they are just too faint. The lunar landscape is lit by the sun and you're taking pictures of a man in a white (space) suit. So you set a fast aperture speed on your camera, and hence the distant stars are too faint to be seen.

<b>Where are the stars? </b><br/> The pictures taken from the surface of the moon show a black sky, but space is full of stars. Where are they? The stars are there, they are just too faint. The lunar landscape is lit by the sun and you're taking pictures of a man in a white (space) suit. So you set a fast aperture speed on your camera, and hence the distant stars are too faint to be seen.

&lt;b&gt;The fluttering flag&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
Why does the US flag planted appear to be fluttering in a breeze when the astronauts are in a vacuum? 

The flag had a pole inserted across the top so that it would look right in the photographs. The astronauts didn't extend the pole fully and the flag was left with a crease in it.

<b>The fluttering flag</b><br/> Why does the US flag planted appear to be fluttering in a breeze when the astronauts are in a vacuum? The flag had a pole inserted across the top so that it would look right in the photographs. The astronauts didn't extend the pole fully and the flag was left with a crease in it.

&lt;b&gt;The Van Allen belt &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
Why weren't the astronauts killed by the radiation from the magnetic fields around the earth? 

The radiation in the Van Allen belts is strong enough to kill, only if you linger. The astronauts were through in around an hour - about the same level of radiation as an x-ray.

<b>The Van Allen belt </b><br/> Why weren't the astronauts killed by the radiation from the magnetic fields around the earth? The radiation in the Van Allen belts is strong enough to kill, only if you linger. The astronauts were through in around an hour - about the same level of radiation as an x-ray.

&lt;b&gt;The shadows&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
The shadows may fall differently to how we expect, but this is not our planet - things will be different there. The moon's surface casts undulates and creates strange effect, but importantly there is only ever one shadow, which indicates on elight source - the sun. 

The shadows are not parallel. This indicates more than one light source.

<b>The shadows</b><br/> The shadows may fall differently to how we expect, but this is not our planet - things will be different there. The moon's surface casts undulates and creates strange effect, but importantly there is only ever one shadow, which indicates on elight source - the sun. The shadows are not parallel. This indicates more than one light source.

&lt;b&gt;Its too hot &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;

The moon's surface temperature reaches up to 280 fahrenheit. Nothing works at that temperature - the film used would have melted for example. 

The film was in protective canisters and all equipment and astronauts were in pretty hi-tech gear themselves. And they landed at lunar dawn too so the temperatures were significantly lower.

<b>Its too hot </b><br/> The moon's surface temperature reaches up to 280 fahrenheit. Nothing works at that temperature - the film used would have melted for example. The film was in protective canisters and all equipment and astronauts were in pretty hi-tech gear themselves. And they landed at lunar dawn too so the temperatures were significantly lower.

&lt;b&gt;Footprints require moisture &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;

The footprints made in the dust on the moon would require moisture to make - try it with sand.

Well, you could also try it with talcum powder, which doesn't require moisture to retain a footprint and bears much more resemblance to the fine grain of moon dust.

<b>Footprints require moisture </b><br/> The footprints made in the dust on the moon would require moisture to make - try it with sand. Well, you could also try it with talcum powder, which doesn't require moisture to retain a footprint and bears much more resemblance to the fine grain of moon dust.

&lt;b&gt;They would have been killed by meteors on the way &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;

Space is filled with fast, tiny meteors that would have punched through the spacecraft and killed the mission and astronauts. 

There are millions of meteors, travelling at around 120,000mph. But space is a big place so the density is low and the chances of passing through unmolested is very high.

<b>They would have been killed by meteors on the way </b><br/> Space is filled with fast, tiny meteors that would have punched through the spacecraft and killed the mission and astronauts. There are millions of meteors, travelling at around 120,000mph. But space is a big place so the density is low and the chances of passing through unmolested is very high.

&lt;b&gt;Where is the blast crater? &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
When the lunar module landed, there would have been a crater. 

Most people slow down to park the car - so did the landing module. It landed rather gently and the thrust from the rockets is dispersed in a vacuum, and doesn't force air downwards as on earth.

<b>Where is the blast crater? </b><br/> When the lunar module landed, there would have been a crater. Most people slow down to park the car - so did the landing module. It landed rather gently and the thrust from the rockets is dispersed in a vacuum, and doesn't force air downwards as on earth.

&lt;b&gt;The cameraman watched them leave &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;

How come there's footage of the astronauts leaving the moon? Who filmed that? 

It was a camera left on the surface of the moon and controlled from earth.

<b>The cameraman watched them leave </b><br/> How come there's footage of the astronauts leaving the moon? Who filmed that? It was a camera left on the surface of the moon and controlled from earth.

&lt;b&gt;Where were the flames? &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;

When the top half of the lunar module takes off from the moon, there is no flame from the rocket 

The fuel they used to take off from the moon gives off no flame. The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. They used different fuel for the Apollo launch rocket on earth.

<b>Where were the flames? </b><br/> When the top half of the lunar module takes off from the moon, there is no flame from the rocket The fuel they used to take off from the moon gives off no flame. The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. They used different fuel for the Apollo launch rocket on earth.

<b>Where are the stars? </b><br/> The pictures taken from the surface of the moon show a black sky, but space is full of stars. Where are they? The stars are there, they are just too faint. The lunar landscape is lit by the sun and you're taking pictures of a man in a white (space) suit. So you set a fast aperture speed on your camera, and hence the distant stars are too faint to be seen.

Few event in world history have generated quite so many conspiracy theories than the Apollo moon landings.

But do they stand up? Here are the best reasons why it couldn’t have happened, and the rebuttals. Of course, you may disagree.

>>Click on the image to launch our guide

Source: Independent

Belfast Telegraph